You're not the king of your kingdom

[pTivo]

Since 1.4.1, as the ruler, you cannot decide the outcome of a vote.
So, you can use your influence to "help" the decision, but it's very limited and it's weird. Having sacred majesty but beeing ruled by a democracy, a bunch of poor lords ???
Bring us back the true power of dictature and the ability to choose the outcome of important decisions! (plz)

 

[pTivo]

And, as leader of your army, if your infantry is under command of another lord (but you are the army's leader, and the king btw) they will go where you want, but not move as the formation you order. So it's loose formation for everyone. it's weird to have to disband your amy just before engaging the ennemy to counter this bug.

 

[Caps]

It would be nice to choose if you want to be a democracy or autocracy, with different rules and outcomes embedded into the existing gameplay system.

For example as a ruler you will have alot of revolutions and split offs, if you dont do well in battle, your army is weak and relations will detoriate quickly if you take everything for yourself.
Meanwhile as democracy you need to keep parties in balance to prevent revolution and clan split offs.
This could be worked around on base of the Influence system, where different decisions give different relations based on the system used.

 

[Seleucid]

It would be nice to choose if you want to be a democracy or autocracy, with different rules and outcomes embedded into the existing gameplay system.

For example as a ruler you will have a lot of revolutions and split offs, if you don't do well in battle, your army is weak and relations will detoriate quickly if you take everything for yourself.
Meanwhile as democracy you need to keep parties in balance to prevent revolution and clan split offs.
This could be worked around on base of the Influence system, where different decisions give different relations based on the system used.

That's more of an oligarchy/ HRE style elector system.
Different government types would be really interesting and flesh out the factions. For instance there could be a republic style allows for each year or two for a sort of election to happen either with just the lords/clans with a more elector feel or for every notable in the faction to get a vote(to simulate a universal democracy.)

 

[Caps]

That's more of an oligarchy/ HRE style elector system.
Different government types would be really interesting and flesh out the factions. For instance there could be a republic style allows for each year or two for a sort of election to happen either with just the lords/clans with a more elector feel or for every notable in the faction to get a vote(to simulate a universal democracy.)

Well it would be feasible to implement in the current system. probably even as mod. But it would be nice to see more variety in the end, that can lead to different playthroughs in the late game.

 

[Sachingare]

A king is not always an autocratic God-Kaiser of infinite power and wisdom.
Kings in history have often been only puppets controlled by their council
And if you're a lord with big power and a big army, why would you listen to a "king" that's actually weaker than you? Or if you don't like him and the lords are on your side?
If push comes to shove you would say : F* you king, I'm in charge now. Move your butt from the throne.

Some more interesting political options could be considered, for a more exiting and varied game.

 

[panxo_dakilla]

And, as leader of your army, if your infantry is under command of another lord (but you are the army's leader, and the king btw) they will go where you want, but not move as the formation you order. So it's loose formation for everyone. it's weird to have to disband your amy just before engaging the ennemy to counter this bug.

Dismount

 

[kreamy]

Since 1.4.1, as the ruler, you cannot decide the outcome of a vote.
So, you can use your influence to "help" the decision, but it's very limited and it's weird. Having sacred majesty but beeing ruled by a democracy, a bunch of poor lords ???
Bring us back the true power of dictature and the ability to choose the outcome of important decisions! (plz)

don't get any clans, just mercenaries. youll have your own kingdom

 

[Timmortal]

Bannerlord is more of a Timocracy.

 

[Cochus1]

Since 1.4.1, as the ruler, you cannot decide the outcome of a vote.
So, you can use your influence to "help" the decision, but it's very limited and it's weird. Having sacred majesty but beeing ruled by a democracy, a bunch of poor lords ???
Bring us back the true power of dictature and the ability to choose the outcome of important decisions! (plz)

Medieval monarchies werent like authoritarian monarchy or absolutism from the modern age. The king power were hardly tied by the nobles, who were much stronger in that age.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

Medieval monarchies werent like authoritarian monarchy or absolutism from the modern age. The king power were hardly tied by the nobles, who were much stronger in that age.

Kings usually had the final say on things, though. They might risk a revolt by going against the wishes of their nobles, but its not like the nobles could just override the king's decisions at will. That's an insurrection.

 

[Timmortal]

Kings usually had the final say on things, though. They might risk a revolt by going against the wishes of their nobles, but its not like the nobles could just override the king's decisions at will. That's an insurrection.

Yet it happened all the time, kings issued demands and they were just ignored… either by the common folk or the lords of the land, if no one enforced it, it was like it never were, it might be a law and all, but only on paper.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

Yet it happened all the time, kings issued demands and they were just ignored… either by the common folk or the lords of the land, if no one enforced it, it was like it never were, it might be a law and all, but only on paper.

Noncompliance is different than outright overruling the king's decisions and passing your own laws.

 

[TheShermanator]

Kings usually had the final say on things, though. They might risk a revolt by going against the wishes of their nobles, but its not like the nobles could just override the king's decisions at will. That's an insurrection.

Right. I think kings should be able to overrule majority decisions, but there should be costs and consequences (and, ultimately risk): Big influence costs to overrule, relations costs, some other metric that would drive secession / rebellions, etc.

 

[Timmortal]

Noncompliance is different than outright overruling the king's decisions and passing your own laws.

okay not the best example agreed, its a sister issue, but the other thing happened aswell, where lords would put in laws over the kings heads, atleast thats how it was like in Denmark. We even had a king killed because he wanted to go to war, then the lords put in his half brother instead.

 

[Nakh]

King usually was head or at least face of strongest political force in country, and mostly his will was representation of some consensus inside this political force. Probably then we have relations fixed and mean something, where will be way to form such political force inside your kingdom.

 

[epicgear60]

A king is not always an autocratic God-Kaiser of infinite power and wisdom.
Kings in history have often been only puppets controlled by their council
And if you're a lord with big power and a big army, why would you listen to a "king" that's actually weaker than you? Or if you don't like him and the lords are on your side?
If push comes to shove you would say : F* you king, I'm in charge now. Move your butt from the throne.

Some more interesting political options could be considered, for a more exiting and varied game.

Yes but many regimes also consolidate power so that leaders have the final decision for better or worse. If a system was in place for mimicking political intrigue and choosing a dictatorship or democracy, these things would be acceptable. But since the game is now a de facto democracy, 1.4.1 is basically holding back an onslaught of poor AI decisions

 

[stevehoos]

I love these posts in here. A king has "no absolute power." Really, lol........ Magna Carta Calradia!! The liberty of citizens

 

[paladinx333]

Other than recruiting vassals, being the king is no different that being one of the lords. I want to be an actual king, not the chief executive at a public service corporation. Currently it is impossible to be an actual king in Bannerlord and that is a huge issue.

 

[stevehoos]

Other than recruiting vassals, being the king is no different that being one of the lords. I want to be an actual king, not the chief executive at a public service corporation. Currently it is impossible to be an actual king in Bannerlord and that is a huge issue.

The game is egalitarian, it is not a monarchy. What are they thinking here?